21
© 2014 HDR, all rights reserved. Agenda Item 6.8 Update on Consultant Planning Tasks October 7, 2015
© 2014 HDR, all rights reserved.
Agenda Item 6.8
Update on Consultant Planning Tasks
October 7, 2015
6.8.1 – Review proposed responses to comments
6.8.2 – Summary of TWDB analysis of socio-economic impacts of not meeting needs
6.8.3 – Update on Infrastructure Financing Survey
6.8.4 – Update on City of Bryan ASR WMS Evaluation
6.8.5 – Update on 2011 Implementation Survey
6.8.6 – Schedule for adoption of final plan
Items for Discussion
Chapter 10 – Adoption of Plan
o Describe public participation and coordination activities
o Responses to comments received on Initially Prepared Plan
• Public comments from June 23, 2015 hearing
• Written comments from public
• Agency comments
» TPWD
» BRA
» TWDB
Agenda Item 6.8.1 – Responses to Comments
Draft PDF of Chapter 10
Agenda Item 6.8.1 – Responses to Comments
BRA has expressed that “the total amount of water assumed to be available from the System
Operation Permits as a recommended water management strategy should not significantly
exceed the volume contained in the 2011 Plan until effects of the recent drought are
evaluated.” Further, BRA contends that there is approximately 57,000 acft of Sys-Ops supply
being utilized in the 2016 IPP more than in the 2011 Plan.
Proposed Response:
HDR has identified and corrected database issues where Sys Ops was being
incorrectly assigned as a source. BRA has agreed with the remaining supply
volumes, noting that final Sys Ops availability is pending final TCEQ
determination, which includes a study to determine the effects of the recent
drought.
Proposed Response to BRA Comments (Sys-Ops)
Changes required in the IPP to address proposed responses to comments:
Agenda Item 6.8.1 – Responses to Comments
o Coleman County SUD – an update to supply from Region F indicates a water shortage.
Region F has provided subordination strategy to meet needs.
o Bell-Milam Falls WSC – not to be part of EWCWSP
o Multi-County WSC – become sponsor of Coryell County Off-Channel Reservoir
o Bryan – revise ASR strategy and revise additional Brazos/Robertson County wells
o NCTMWA – switch Millers Creek Aug and Lake Creek Reservoir (Rec/Alt). Affects Knox City,
Munday, Aspermont, Rule, Haskell, Haskell C-O.
o Add strategy for Georgetown for small shortage in 2070 (BRA Sys Ops to firm up supply)
o Heart of Texas supply to Hutto – change from Little River OCR to Lee County groundwater
o Hutto, Williamson C-O – add advanced conservation as a strategy
o Chloride Control strategy – incorporate supply of 2,475 acft/yr, based on decrease of reject.
o Potentially add Lake Granger Augmentation strategy as recommended for BRA with 0 yield.
Agenda Item 6.8.2 – Summary of TWDB Analysis ofSocio-Economic Impacts of not Meeting Needs
Socio-Economic Impacts Analysis
Analysis required by planning rules
TWDB staff perform analysis based on 2016 IPP
IMPLAN I/O Economic Model
Impact of not meeting water needs during a repeat drought of record – basically no
water management strategies are implemented.
Impacts estimated as income losses and job losses
Financial transfer impacts – tax losses, water trucking costs, utility revenue losses
Social impacts – lost consumer surplus, population and school enrollment losses
Report included as Appendix H in 2016 Final Plan
Results published by County and Sector
Brazos G economy generates $85 billion in gross state product
Brazos G supports1,045,000 jobs
Not meeting water shortages would cause the region to lose:
o 146,122 jobs in 2070
o $16.1 billion income in 2070
Summary of Findings
Irrigation67,070
Manufacturing12,898
Mining64,121
Municipal262,429
Steam-Electric Power
162,658
Brazos G Water Needs – 2070 (acft/yr)
Agenda Item 6.8.3 – Update on Infrastructure Financing Survey
Infrastructure Financing Survey
1. Survey for sponsors of recommended projects
2. 63 Municipal WUG surveys mailed or emailed September 23,
2015
3. 6 responses to date
4. Responses due Oct 9
Agenda Item 6.8.4 – Update on City of Bryan ASR Strategy
City of Bryan ASR – 2016 IPP
Plan Element 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Projected Surplus/(Shortage)
after Conservation(2,841) 304 (3,917) (10,178) (16,891) (24,436)
Groundwater Development - Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Robertson Co.
Supply From Plan Element
(acft/yr)3,826 3,826 4,171 5,565 11,826 19,478
Groundwater Development - Carrizo Wilcox Aquifer in Brazos County
Supply From Plan Element
(acft/yr)— — — 5,100 5,100 5,100
Alternative: Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Supply From Plan Element
(acft/yr) 14,626 14,626 14,626 14,626 14,626 14,626
Bryan’s permitted groundwater supply is 33,540 acft/yr
Current Well field capacity of 20,167 acft/yr
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer MAG increases between 2020 – 2070
Aquifer is overallocated in 2020 and 2030
Bryan’s supply is MAG limited
City of Bryan ASR Model
Conjunctive use strategy – ASR
Wet/Dry gpcd during period of record – savings
account
Pump and store existing historical use permits
Carrizo-Wilcox target formation
Peaking of 2.0
10% losses
Does not bust the MAG or the City’s permits
Infrastructure Timing
Convert 1 production well to ASR
4 additional ASR wells in 2030, 2060
and 2070. + 4 recovery-only wells
o Total injection capacity of 13,549 acft/yr
o Total recovery yield of 19,839 acft/yr
2 new 3,000 gpm production wells by
2050 (Brazos County C-W Aquifer)
Costs – ASR and Brazos Production Wells
Cost City of Bryan
Pump Station, Transmission, Treatment
$12,312,000
Well Fields (ASR, Production, Piping) $36,711,000
TOTAL CAPITAL $49,023,000
TOTAL COST OF PROJECT $68,456,000
Debt Service $5,728,000
O&M $2,400,000
Other (power, wells) $782,000
TOTAL ANNUAL $8,910,000
Total Project Yield (acft/yr) 24,436
Annual Unit Cost ($ per acft) $365
Annual Unit Cost ($ per 1000 gal) $1.12
City of Bryan Revised Plan – Final 2016 Plan
Plan Element 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Projected
Surplus/(Shortage) (acft/yr)(2,841) 304 (3,917) (10,178) (16,891) (24,436)
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Supply From Plan Element
(acft/yr) 2,841 — 3,917 5,581 12,294 19,839
Groundwater Development - Carrizo Wilcox Aquifer in Brazos County
Supply From Plan Element
(acft/yr)— — — 4,597 4,597 4,597
Agenda Item 6.8.5 – 2011 Implementation Survey
Implementation of the 2011 Brazos G Plan
The Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group is required to inform the TWDB regarding
the implementation status of projects/strategies recommended in the previous (2011)
regional water plan.
Survey sent to 89 entities with 18 respondents listed below (36 strategies):
o Abilene
o Aqua WSC
o Baird
o Brazos River Authority
o Brushy Creek MUD
o Cedar Park
o Gatesville
o Georgetown
o Groesbeck
o Jarrell-Schwertner WSC
o Merkel
o Mineral Wells
o North Central Texas
Municipal Water Authority
o Palo Pinto MWD#1
o Strawn
o Sweetwater
o Temple
o Throckmorton
Implementation of the 2011 Brazos G Plan
Level of Implementation?
o 36% Ongoing
o 31% Complete
o 28% Not Implemented
o 6% No Answer
Reason Not Implemented, If Applicable
o 43% Too Soon
o 13% Financing
o 13% Permit Constraints
o 9% Other
o 22% No Answer
Funding Source
o 25% Self (Cash)
o 17% TWDB
o 6% Local (Market Issue)
o 3% Operating Revenues
o 19% Other
o 31% No Answer
Included in 2016 Plan?
o 50% Yes
o 22% No
o 28% No Answer
May 1: Initially Prepared Plan submitted
June 23: Public hearing on Initially Prepared Plan
August 3: Expect to receive TWDB comments
August 24: Deadline for written public comments
September: RWPG meeting (if necessary)
Mid-September: send draft responses to members for review & RWPG meeting
October 7: RWPG meeting
o Review and approve draft responses to comments
o Revise plan as needed
October: final plan revisions and edits
November: RWPG meeting to adopt final 2016 Plan
December 1: Submit final 2016 Brazos G Regional Water Plan to TWDB
Agenda Item 6.8.6 – Schedule for Adoption of 2016 Plan
